PDF Print E-mail
Lawsuit filed over dogs

By JENNIFER MOLK
For The Outpost

tbo-It's_All_About_LoveAfter long considering a lawsuit if she couldn’t take possession of a dog of her choice, a former volunteer in the county’s largest animal rescue operation is now suing the operation and the agency in charge of the animal adoptions, alleging breach of contract.

Penny Ronning made good on her very vocal disappointment and filed a lawsuit late Friday against Yellowstone County and National English Shepherd Rescue in District Court.

Last week, The Billings Outpost reported on the county’s largest animal rescue operation in history, brought on when Ballantine resident Linda Kapsa’s dog breeding operation was exposed and she was ultimately sentenced in District Court for animal cruelty.

 

More than 200 English shepherds and a few other animals were taken into the county’s custody, and after months of rehabilitation, most have since been placed for adoption around the country.

The county set up the temporary Operation New Beginnings at MetraPark in January to manage the intake and nurturing of the dogs; National English Shepherd Rescue (NESR) is the agency that the county appointed to handle the paperwork and screenings required to place the dogs.

Ms. Ronning has maintained she was guaranteed adoption of at least one dog that was placed in her care, and to this day, does not have any of the four she applied to adopt.

But Catherine Schaeffer, emergency shelter manager with Operation New Beginnings, said Tuesday, “I don’t see how she has grounds for a lawsuit. Nobody signed any contract or any agreement. In fact, everybody was told from day one: Do not take ownership of these dogs; these are not your dogs. No one was guaranteed a dog. The handlers and volunteers were told they would get first preference.”

NESR president Kathi Tesarz told the Outpost last week, “All of the volunteers were offered at least one dog that they had chosen.

“There was less than a handful that had chosen a dog that we, through our behaviorists’ evaluations, deemed needed special foster homes for remedial training. One of the dogs that Penny chose was one of those dogs.”

Two of the other dogs Ms. Ronning applied for were on a list of dogs Ms. Kapsa was hoping to recoup if given the chance by the judge in the case, so they were in legal limbo for a short time; the fourth dog was offered to Ms. Ronning, but according to Ms. Tesarz, she “refused that dog.”

Ms. Ronning vehemently stated she didn’t refuse the dog, but rather made it available to a fellow volunteer whose application she believed was turned in before hers.

Kathi Tesarz insisted it wasn’t Ms. Ronning’s option to make that decision and said the first application for that dog was Ms. Ronning’s.

The other volunteer named in the lawsuit as a plaintiff is Kelly Dennehy, who, according to court documents, also volunteered with Operation New Beginnings received no dog.

The suit seeks damages for breach of contract and immediate possession of two dogs.

Ms. Ronning did not reply to a request for comment by press time.

Last Updated ( Wednesday, 09 September 2009 21:40 )
 

1 Comment

  1. What Tesarz and Schaeffer always fail to acknowledge, while insisting that every volunteer was offered one dog of their choice, is that the one dog offered to Penny Ronning is the only dog applied for by the person who adopted it. I didn't realize that every volunteer offered at least ""one"" was meant literally. One dog, you split it up. How did they propose to handle King Solomon's choice? Also, you just have to love the direct contradiction in the statements, "The handlers and volunteers were told they would get first preference" and "Kathi Tesarz insisted it wasn’t Ms. Ronning’s option to make that decision". In other words, you have an option but it isn't your option. Good luck defending that.

Add Comment



Click to get a new image.